4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Okha of the Sakhalin Region.
5.  The applicant was employed as head of the legal department at a branch of a state-owned oil company. On 29 May 1998 the employer informed the applicant that she was dismissed from her position following staff reduction.
6.  On 30 June 1998 the applicant brought a court action against her former employer before the Okha Town Court of the Sakhalin Region (“the Town Court”). She submitted that her dismissal had been unlawful as de facto she had been dismissed following the reorganisation of the company. She sought to change the ground of her dismissal and to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
7.  The first hearing of her case was scheduled for 7 July 1999. On that date the applicant did not appear at the court hearing as she had not received the summons. On an unspecified date the prosecutor joined the proceedings.
8.  On 14 July 1999 she changed the subject-matter of her claim against the former employer, now seeking reinstatement in her previous post, salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her dismissal.
9.  The hearings scheduled for 12 October and 9 November 1999 did not take place as the judge was involved in different proceedings.
10.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant brought a separate court action against her new employer.
11.  Between 1998 and 2000 the applicant’s claim against the oil company was examined by judges Ch. and Sh. respectively. In 2000 the case was transferred to judge S.
12.  On 24 March 2000 the applicant requested the court’s assistance in obtaining certain evidence.
13.  On 22 January and 16 March 2001 the applicant complained to the president of the Sakhalin Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) of the trial court’s inactivity in her case.
14.  On 19 April 2001 the Town Court granted the respondent’s motion to adjourn the case until 18 July 2001, the date of the hearing of the applicant’s claim against her new employer, and ordered the parties to submit documents relevant to the case. The applicant appealed against this decision. She also requested that her case be re-assigned to another judge as judge S. had been on vacation.
15.  On 10 May 2001 the president of the Regional Court informed the applicant that in order to speed up the proceedings her case had been reallocated to judge P. and a hearing had been scheduled for 23 May 2001.
16.  On 5 June 2001 the Regional Court set aside the decision of 19 April 2001 on appeal and remitted the matter to the Town Court.
17.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sakhalin Region of lengthy examination of her case.
18.  On 8 August 2001 the prosecutor confirmed that there had indeed been periods of inactivity in the examination of the case between 1998 and 2000. He informed the applicant that the case was set down for examination on 3 September 2001.
19.  On 10 August 2001 the prosecutor replied to the applicant’s complaint that the president of the Regional Court had been informed about the delays in the examination of her case. He also advised her to forward her complaints to the Higher Board of Judicial Qualifications.
20.  On 3 September 2001 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s objection to judge S. and adjourned the examination of the case.
21.  On 26 October 2001 the applicant requested that the examination of her case be postponed until her claim against her new employer had been considered by an appeal court. On 16 May 2002 the applicant requested resumption of the proceedings.
22.  On 11 December 2002 the applicant’s case was reassigned to judge Z.
23.  On 4 January and 24 March 2003 the hearings were adjourned to give the parties time to secure further evidence. On 24 March 2003 the applicant increased her claim for non-pecuniary damage.
24.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant withdrew her claim for modification of the ground of dismissal and on the same date the Town Court discontinued the proceedings in this respect. The hearing was adjourned to enable the respondent to secure additional evidence.
25.  The hearing of 25 September 2003 was adjourned following the respondent’s representative’s failure to appear.
26.  The examination of the case resumed on 1 October 2003.
27.  On 7 October 2003 the Town Court, under the presidency of judge Z., concluded that the applicant had failed to comply with a one-month statutory time‑limit and dismissed her claim.
28.  On 22 October 2003 the applicant submitted her grounds of appeal against the judgment of 7 October 2003 and her remarks on the record of proceedings.
29.  On 7 November 2003 the respondent and the prosecutor filed their comments on the applicant’s grounds of appeal.
30.  On 14 November 2003 the trial court sent the parties a letter notifying them of the appeal hearing scheduled for 9 December 2003.
31.  On 21 November 2003 the applicant complained to the president of the Regional Court that the Town Court had failed to communicate to her the respondent’s and the prosecutor’s observations and therefore had placed her at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis the respondent.
32.  On 9 December 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 7 October 2003. The court heard the respondent’s representative and the prosecutor and indicated that “the applicant maintained her claims in the hearing”. According to the applicant, she had not been notified of the appeal hearing and therefore could not attend it. There is no indication in the text of the decision that the court verified whether the parties had been duly summoned to the hearing.
33.  On 25 May 2004 the Regional Court refused the applicant’s request to transfer the case for consideration by the supervisory instance. In particular, the court noted that the failure to communicate to the applicant the respondent’s and prosecutor’s observations on her grounds of appeal did not constitute sufficient ground for quashing of the previous judgments as the said observations had not contained any new arguments and, in any event, the law did not envisage the applicant’s further comments.